Jim Deering

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Jim Deering

  1. Gday all, The lug is the "bottom" as far as we can tell. Sorry, I should have turned the image around before I posted it... Yes, looks like a Christmas tree if it were what we think is the "right" way up. Too heavy to stand up solo - if I tried my guts would look like it does, full of odd-shaped holes! Now to forge up some deer... The numbers are out inventory ID, which tells us nothing about its original use, source or anything else remotely useful in finding out what the thing was used for. We have arrived at much the same conclusions offered to date; cable/rope guide, maritime device for handling ropes at some stage in their manufacture or the like. The curvy outer profile may have had something wrapped about it, but it might also have been to distribute stresses generated during use as uniform as possible. www.abavic.org.au is our Association's website, here in the land of Oz, for anyone interested in a look. Please do not turn your computer screen upsidedown; the site is made the wrong way up, just for you in the northern half... Please keep the ideas coming. If by chance we stumble over the solution, it will put to rest some inquisitive minds. Jim Deering
  2. This item has been sitting in our workshop literally for decades. No one knows what it is, what it is from, what does (gathers dust well, makes for a very sore big toe) or was used for. We just don't know! Can you help with some info please? Has a mounting lug at what is presumably the bottom, stands about 3'6" tall, about 20" wide and 6" thick with radiused holes in it as shown in the picture. Thanks in advance, Jim Deering.
  3. Hello Lazyassforge Could you look at your PMs please as I've sent you one regarding this hammer Thanks for posting the image. I'm very surprised even one of these hammers still exits I have a space in the forge floor plan where it would fit... :-) Frosty and Charles If you fellows ever find one of these hammers looking for a home would you mind getting in touch? Yes, I know, you'll sell one to me after you've used it for a decade or two. I'm not that young you know!
  4. Australia. Leave steel outside on sunny day. When steel is hot, bring inside and begin forging
  5. G'day I saw a flatter set up on a power hammer for refining the very long tapered legs on a table on this site a little while ago Seem to recall it could run up and down on a vertical shaft to cater for the material's change in thickness and had the ability to pivot on a horizontal axis to let the flatter face follow the taper, regardless of the angle and smooth it as the taper was drawn through the dies. The bottom hammer die was flat and the top one - can't recall the profile - merely struck the flatter to remove any ridging in the taper from the initial drawing operation Anyone able to find this? There were images in the thread but I can't locate it now, despite having searched under various keywords... Jim Deering
  6. Well, this thing has taken on a life of its own, as these things tend to do Now grown to a bed press of 10'x 6' working area and 4' of clear space between the underside of the cross head and the bed surface to provide clearance for tooling and materials Hydraulic motors and chain drives to provide controlled X and Y axis movement over this area - an area large enough to cover an entire 4'x 8' sheet of material - and probably long stroke rams to lift and lower the crosshead carrying the 40T ram, unless the motor and chain drive can be made to work here too Also looking to mount a hydraulic drive and steering wheel at one end - three wheels all up - so it can be moved about the workshop under its own steam, or oil, if you prefer Rudimentary calcs to get basic sizing are starting and might even get a CAD model out in a little while, after the calcs are past round one. Not a pipe dream either, as this is just the sort of thing you can fab up in the back shed in the wet season. Really! More in a bit...
  7. G'day, Yes, well... Could still use oak, but I'd been wondering why anyone would bother, frankly. I roughed out the deepening of the lower die seat in my hammer (-3mm to make back to square and flat) with an angle grinder. Then, using a gauge I had a mate machine up for me, set about reforming the dovetails and seating area for the die using hand tools. I'd previously welded up the fretted areas and, after a fair bit of work, it all fitted together quite well. Just saying though, line bored and bushed is a lot easier to get everything true, which makes for a better-performing hammer. I haven't had time to get those images and sketches but I haven't forgotten the offer was made either so the info will appear... Regards Jim Deering
  8. G'day, I've measured up the bearing cap - they are both the same - and once I have them drawn more neatly, will post the drawings and some images to go with them. A day or two, depending on the weather... If it rains, sooner, it not, later... Now, were I to do this job again, and be, as you note, not fussed about massive, I would be line-boring the main shaft bearings with the caps bolted into place and then fitting bronze bushes, NOT going to all the trouble of pouring and finishing new white-metal bearings. A far better result and far more easily serviced in future, should the need arise. That noted, if you are confident in casting bronze I should expect it to handle to job quite well, if done properly and with a reasonably strong alloy. The female part of the pitman shaft assembly in these hammers is cast from bronze and it sees plenty of energy transferred through it, as well as shock loading. The catch, if it is one, is the entire cap would then need to be redone once the bearing surface deteriorated to the point excess clearance was causing a nuisance. That's assuming you are making the entire cap act as a bearing and not making a bush to fit into the bronze cap. This would leave you making - probably white-metal I'd guess - the bottom bearing shells after pouring them in situ anyway. The quoted cost of the pattern making is pretty high compared against the cost of just two caps, but as we all know, casting is a process where many items are made from one pattern, which is where the economy of mass production comes into play. If you pattern passes muster, I'd probably go with the caps cast in iron then white-metal those... But have a think about line-boring, if you have the equipment... The bearing caps do get a bit of reversing load applied to them - the rear cap gets upward force when the tup is being lifted and the front cap then see the majority of the reaction load, the rear one the minority, as the tup strikes the work, both in an upward direction also. The pedestals of the main frame see bearing forces at opposite positions of the tup, as well as the slow-speed vertical dynamic loads and rotational loads whilst the machine is rotating but not striking a workpiece. If you were going to use oak as the caps and hence the upper bearing material - just for argument's sake - I think you could get that to work quite well. So long as you back it up with say a 1" thick steel flat bar backing piece to avoid the possibility of the oak splitting and letting go of the main shaft. Certainly makes for a simple shape; a rectangle with a half-round midway in one long edge, easily replaced and if kept greased, slippery enough to not present a large amount of friction. It would need to be shimmed so that the excess play can be allowed for as this sort of bearing seats and then wears though. After all, oak isn't going to permit close machining or hand-finishing tolerances as expected from metals. There were plenty of simple, low capacity bearings like this used in the past... Still leaves you to deal with the bottom bearing halves. Or perhaps these are still in your hammer and are good enough to use? If so, please let us know. Regards Jim Deering
  9. G'day Richard Glad to help! What is the diameter of the pin that holds the links to the Tup? I'll get back to you on that... I made this part new and reamed to original hole so it is a little bigger than the original, but only marginally so. I re-made the toggle arms too, with bronze bushings in them, as the old ones were well and truly cactus Is the 65lb the weight of the Tup with or without a die? Just the tup, from memory. I've put a somewhat larger than standard tup die on mine and a far larger bottom die, so my No. 1 is probably closer to 70lb that 65lb If the dovetails for the dies are not tapered are they held in with dual tapered shims? That's how I've set mine up. Dual tapered keys, opposing each other, one short, the other long, with a hole in it to permit use of a hook tipped slide hammer to extract it; saves on mushrooming the end. Despite many people saying don't do it, I also use brass shims between the dovetail, die and keys to prevent any picking up. That is a major pain to deal with if it happens and the shims stop it 100%. The original dovetails in my hammer frame were so dilapidated that they were impossible to measure from so I simply did what I thought would work best. Sixteen years later it is still working, so the pudding has been proved I'll get some images of the hammer and post them later today Regards Jim Deering
  10. G'day Measured the tup on my Champion Blower and Forge Hercules No. 1 and here is the result. It's in metric, but there are plenty of converters out there... The 8° noted on the dovetail's sides is what I chose to machine mine to. It was close to the original, but I haven't a record of that available right now. You can make it what you like, but 8° is as good as any, unless you are looking to use modern dies, in which case just match what the die maker machines theirs to. The dovetail is machined square to the vertical face of the slide in elevation, parallel in plan, which keeps everything easy to set up later. The sides of the dovetail are parallel, unlike those found in some hammers, which have a 1:100 taper. Unnecessary, in my opinion. Alternatively, you could weld a block to the bottom of the tup and make your dies bolt-on types. I do not think there is enough space for sufficient material to use a dovetailed assembly in your hammer's tup. Your hammer, your choice. Also measured the frame on my Champion Blower and Forge Hercules No. 1., The distance from a readily identifiable datum to the die seat face is noted on the sketch. I left the dovetail details off, as you are planning on doing something else with that area. If you want the info, I can get for you no problem though. The red in the final sketch shows one idea to make a die mounting plate - almost a sow block, but getting enough thickness from the available space your hammer frame has to call it that might be challenging - and its fitting to the hammer main frame. I'd go with at least four, preferably six bolts, as I think the old, dirty cast iron frame will let go of welds due to fatigue failure. Bolts are easily re-tightened... Use high grade bolts with a fine thread pitch and tap deeply. The reasons should be obvious. Hexagon socket head screws would be best, unlike the hexagon heads shown in the sketch. I'll see what I can come up with for the main bearing caps soon. Yours could either be made to serve the function regardless of appearance, or replicated from the old in order to be in keeping with the original style of the machine. Quite likely the pulley has just swelled onto the motor shaft, by the way. As you have a suitable grey iron bar material available, I'd suggest making a new one and just getting rid of the wooden one. It'll have to go to service the motor, so it has to come off and I'd have my doubts it could be salvaged. Regards, Jim Deering.
  11. G'day Richard 2HP is good and even better if the high torque Century can be resurrected... I run mine at a calculated speed of 260bpm, which I can vary with the slipping belt of course. I have two pullies on the idler shaft - used to gear things down from the motor, with all of the drive mounted overhead - the other pulley gives 300bpm. I find the slower speed a bit better to manage that the almost flailing behaviour it exhibits at the higher number of blows per minute. Faster is probably better if you are just looking to belt the tar out of something; slower is better for control, but it is not that much slower that the compound tup movement generated by the toggle linkages is reduced to the point of ineffectiveness. The printed matter on these hammers states 300bpm for this model by the way. I just find that a bit quick I should think 1018 would stick to the tup OK. Warm it first and let it cool slowly, as it is a fairly thick section to try and weld cold. Over here in the land of Oz, leaving it outside on a sunny day will get it to +65 Celsius, no problem, otherwise gentle heat from a torch or similar will do the job. You'll probably notice oil start to come out of the tup as you heat it and you'll need to make some allowance for this whilst you are welding. Stainless rods are a bit more tolerant of dirty parent material - and no, you won't get it all out unless you heat the tup to yellow! - so you'll be playing that by ear a bit. From the images you've posted, about 2 inches of the bottom of the tup is missing. That is a lot of build up to do mate! Perhaps a bolt-on die, with a freshly machined flat and square to the slide surface for it to register against might be a better option... Take the opportunity to true up the slides on the tup as well, as if they are not straight on all three running faces, the hammer will be difficult to make run smoothly. Same goes for the bolt-on guides, which are steel and the slide, which is cast iron. Sounds like a lot of machining, but the beauty of this design of hammer is that is you are really unable to afford or do the machining yourself, a surface plate and a file will get you suitable surfaces. It just takes longer. If you don't know how, you're going to be learning to handscrape bearing surfaces too. That will be a real treat! If it comes time to weld the bottom die area, again, the hammer frame will be like a sponge, in reverse. Heating makes the trapped oil ooze out of the pores in the casting like it is being squeezed. I had sandblasted and primed mine, then heated it up for the main bearing babbitt pour and it looked like a black and white image of the worst case of chicken pox you've ever seen. I welded the die dovetails on mine using stainless - I'll need to look for the grade - rods. Grind the area to a clean and sound surface, preheat the frame, weld a little with low Amps and high Volts, peen, weld a little, peen... Make CERTAIN you weld on more material than you will need to enable the welded deposit to be ground back to the shape and size you want. You can use cast iron rods, but the stainless ones seem far more forgiving when the parent metal is contaminated. Yep, said that twice now... Having had a second look at the die area in the frame of yours, I would make a suggestion for you to think about. Rather than trying to build that big opening up with welding, machine it entirely flat, blend the radius up from the flat area to the original throat of the frame, avoiding all sharp transitions and then make a sow block - I'd be using steel for this part - for the die to be mounted into. If you have the machining gear, a dovetailed connection for the sow block would be the best way to connect it. Otherwise, I'd be drilling and tapping into the frame and bolting the sow block in place. I really think the frame is too far gone to try and weld repair it to the point of being able to make a dovetail in it that will allow the die to be connected to it directly. The sow block solves that issue to my way of thinking, but it is only a suggestion If you do machine the frame flat at the lower die area, make sure it is square to the face the tup slide mounts to, both horizontally and vertically, as it'll make fitting up and tuning the hammer much easier later on If you use a length of precision ground - not peeled - shaft that will be what you make the main drive shaft from later, you can reduce the amount of handwork you'll be doing after you pour the bearings. Sit it in place using the bearing recess reservoir ends to locate it, make it all square to the tup slide face - remember you've already made the lower die face square to the tup slide face, haven't you? Use Babbittrite to block up any gaps around the reservoir ends that you are using to stop the ends of the bearing recesses and the holes in them that hold the dummy shaft in place. High temp silicon will also work, but let it go off before pouring. I recommend Babbittrite, as it is specific for the job and proven to work. To avoid "soldering" the dummy shaft to the new bearings, soot it all over with a pure acetylene flame before pouring. I've used Formply to make the reservoir ends from. They will char and are toss outs afterwards, but the wood beds against the frame next to the bearing recesses and that reduces the leak paths for the molten metal There are a multitude of alloys available for these sorts of bearings and I suggest you go to your industrial supplier and tell them exactly what you are doing. They will then go to their supplier and you'll get what the whitemetal supplier thinks will work best. I suggest this, perhaps circuitous path, as most industrial alloy producers, here anyway, deal in big quantities - tonnes - of the stuff and a one off inquiry for a few pounds may fall on deaf ears. An industrial material supplier will have access where you may not is what I'm getting at. Again, I can provide you the alloy composition I used, which has been working without fault for many years, but it's not the sort of thing I have in my head... may your Gods bless notebooks! To give you a lead... In Oz we have The August Metal and Alloys Company, AMAC, who have a good website. From memory, their Crushmet got the nod, but I'll have to confirm that. Nearest international standard is BS3332/4 and the composition is 75.5% tin, 14.5 antimony, 7.0% copper and 3% lead. Recommended for harsh conditions and poor lubrication NOTE - USE safe work procedures for handling this stuff! Not only will it burn a hole in you in the immediate term, it can, and will, poison you in the long term, especially as the vapour forms of these materials are quickly absorbed by the skin and respiratory systems and are proven to lead to all sorts of truly horrible health implications over time Richard A Kern's book 'The Little Giant powerhammer; Rebuilding, use, history', ISBN 978-1880173022, Published 1992 by H&K, is, to me, the definitive reference on repair these old spring hammers. Take no notice of the fact it was written about the Little Giant. The how-to advice applies to any sort of machine tool from this era, not just power hammers I note you have no bearing caps. I can provide sketches if you need them. Not terribly complex, but if you are pouring whitemetal into them there are a couple of things to make sure they have. Keying recesses is one - to give the solidified whitemetal something to hold onto and two holes in the top with a reservoir of some sort above them. This feature is so you have one hole to pour whitemetal into and another for the air to be pushed out of, plus a reservoir to keep hydrostatic pressure on the whitemetal as it solidifies. You'll need a block of steel big enough to make both from simultaneously. More later... That might be starting to bore people, so I'd better leave it there. Regards Jim Deering
  12. Gday Alaric Did a ground up rebuild on one of these far too many years ago to be recalling a number now! It was a basket case too, but perhaps not as rough as yours, in that most of the parts were present, if not correct I'd estimate the main frame casting at about 900lb, give or take. They are not a terribly heavy hammer and the entire thing weighs about 1400lb, without the motor. The Century 1HP that came with mine tips the scale at 140lb If it is stuck, it is possibly rusted between the rotor and stator bore. Take it easy, avoid solvents and you might be able to get it to move and eventually come apart. Solvents will dissolve the winding insulation and that will fry things if you hook power to it "Isonel" made by Schenectady was what I used to reinsulate the winding after I had an earth leakage test done on mine to determine if it was worth saving. It handled 500V so it was worth saving. I can check the spelling and if there is a grade of that stuff tomorrow or you if you want... just let me know It could be stuck at the brushes too, so have a thorough and gentle inspection of the switch end of the motor too. Specialist motor repairers can make new carbon brushes if you need them These old motors are a work of industrial art and are well worth restoring The Century motor I had for it was only 1HP and it really isn't enough for these hammers. The paperwork calls for 2HP and that much power makes it a very lively little hammer. The smaller motor resulted in treating it gently all the time, which didn't do justice to the machine. The extra grunt is well worth having. It would require a bit of creative work, but I think you could get a modern 2HP motor and put it inside the shell of one of these old Century motors, if keeping the 'look' of the motor to compliment the hammer is important to you and the old motor is in fact dead The tup is cast steel, the frame, cast iron. I don't have any material grade information, but given they are over the century mark, neither is likely to be very high-spec I can provide you measurements if you get stuck, based on mine and it was rebuilt to dimensions provided by a number of US-based smiths who helped me out way back when. 1998 rings a bell! Regards Jim Deering
  13. Hello fellow press enthusiasts! I'm looking at making a C-frame hydraulic press, as I have recently obtained a Ø6.3-in single-acting hydraulic cylinder. At 2000psi that's 28t, 2500, 35t and 3000, 42t, so it ought to have enough force to be a handy gizmo. There is still some experimentation needed to determine what the cylinder can actually handle before I settle on the system pressure, hence the range of pressure and force noted in the preceeding... Chasing a maximum ram speed of 2 1/2-in per second Retraction of the large single-acting cylinder is already figured out, so don't worry about the fact that the "pusher" is only a one-way item Having considered such configurations as H-frame, four post, inverted [ram pushing up that is] and so on I think, for what I plan on using it for, a C-frame gives the best access and clearest die and tooling space. After all, it the most common frame type for hammers, be they pneumatic or spring types Considering making it capable of using dies from one of my hammers by machining the rod end to accept those dies, as it saves on making numerous dies from scratch... Tapered key and dovetail fixing I read on a forum here recently that there is a thorough dissertation in an early version of Machinery's Handbook on the design of C-frame presses and was hoping someone might have a volume from which they can copy the relevant section. I think it was pp270-on in the 1922 edition... Should be no issues with copyright, as such a small amount of the book constitutes less that the 'fair study' provisions contained in most jurisdictions Either post here or PM me if you can help please. Happy to share the build on this site once I get my head around the section sizes needed from the calcs. Considering a throat of 30-in, as that will reach to the centre of a standard sheet plus a bit on the short dimension. Yair, I know it will induce a rather large moment into the frame and that's the bit I need some theoretical data on; no point making a press that bends so far in use that it become useless, so the deflection needs to be kept to a minimum of course As it is really re-inventing a well-spun wheel, is there anyone who has already done this style of press with this amount of force? Regards Jim Deering
  14. Hello Colin Been off the site for quite some time, shame on me Did you get the hammer anvil free? If not, you might find it is binding on a burr, or it needs to be spun about to allow for out of round There used to be a large, tapered key fitted into the rectangular holes that go through both sides of the frame of the hammer and the mating rectangular hole in the anvil body. That anvil may be tapered at the bottom end, or it may have a square shoulder and a parallel spigot at the bottom end - you'll know if it is already apart and will know soon if not... The large tapered key was used to lock the anvil into the frame as, when it was driven into place, it bore down on the middle of the anvil against the lower surface of the rectangular hole and upwards on the hammer frame at each side in those rectangular holes. If the parts moved relative to each other a bit, and were left to rattle about, there could sometimes be some material movement which created a burr at the edges of the rectangular holes - all three holes that is. The result, the anvil might move a bit, but can't easily be removed. Hydraulics - hello John N - are a good way to keep the pressure on it, but be aware, the burrs may bind up very tightly and in a worst case scenario - from an over-zealous hydraulic application of force, 'bang', a cracked frame Best to put it back in its hole and with a very bright inspection light check to see of there is anything in or around the rectangular holes preventing the anvil coming free easily. Long die grinder burrs may help get rid of any daggy nasties, otherwise you are in for some chiselling If the anvil can be rotated whilst still in the hole, it may be easier to try this and see if it can be removed at different orientations. Sometimes there can be out of round interference too albeit with the anvil, frame or both - the hole in the hammer frame can be, all these years after they were made, oval slightly. You'd only need to miss that large tapered key once a year since c. 1930's to quilt the bejesus out of the hammer frame to the point that is will not release the anvil after all... The most unlikely problem might be that it is to all intents riveted into the hammer frame. To check that we are talking inspection cameras up the wazoo with the hammer a little off the ground to try and see if there are any hammer marks on the bottom end of the anvil. That has been another issue I found with a hammer that had this sort of problem once upon a time. It had a separate anvil and tipping that upside down was fairly easy. Not so with your machine Could be a fault in that casting too, a cast-in fault that is; I do know of that machine's interesting past experiences with Newtonian mechanics... So grateful Newton had an apple fall on his head, not a power hammer Of course if that doesn't work, I'll give you five dollars for the hammer.... I can pick it up next week... please make sure it is clean... Jim Deering
  15. G'day In short, yes, by a number of manufacturers in fact BK, was Bradford and Kendall, now known as Brad-Ken Still in business, making mining tools and some rather out there items too. Search for the company on-line if you must have more info on it's activities Anvils they made - and if someone feels the need to correct me, be my guest - ranged from 13lb to 6cwt, all in London pattern Made anvils until about the 1970's, I think, and they are not that difficult to find in Australia They'll still cast anvils for you today, if you are really serious about it, in 2cwt size, as that is the last of the patterns they have available to the best of my knowledge They are reasonably priced, when compared to other modern-era anvil-makers fare from various parts of the world Their anvils were of good quality, and are of good, workable proportions. Some might think the table is a little soft, but when steels loose approximately 80% of their strength at forging temperature - except for higher spec. steels - just how hard do you really need an anvil face to be?! It was common for BK anvils to be found in schools and those anvils often come out of the education system in nearly new condition. Thanks to the anvil gods for those tough, old-school trades teachers and for them keeping their young, unskilled and overly-enthusiastic charges under control! If you are looking at buying that anvil, get onto it, check it over thoroughly and don't be a silly bugger in offering the seller some moronic amount short of what he wants, cos someone else will grab it Jim Deering
  16. G'day Hans How is this hammer installation going? Keen to see some images of the job as it progresses.... Regards
  17. G'day Cufflink If you are putting any iron or steel object, such as this anvil, for example, outdoors, make sure you put it on bricks or concrete pads above ground level. This will help to keep the soil away from the base and thus help to prevent what will become extensive, heavy rust over time. In Oz we often find ourselves dealing with acid soils, and if you put fertiliser in your garden you will exacerbate this issue Despite the treatment advice provided to date, it is entirely feasible to do nothing to the surface of the anvil at all and just leave the age patina as-is. You won't live long enough to see it rust away and as it has a uniform finish of its own creation, that being rust, the steels own protection, from further corrosion, I see no reason to mess about with chemical concoctions Do educate your family on the value of the tool, because the unforseen may occur. I know of entire industrial workshops gone to scrap because - there is nothing quite like a steam hammer cut into 1 tonne chunks "because it was easier to put in the skip" - of the ignorance of disinterested family. It would be a great shame for so ignominious a fate to befall such an anvil for no reason other than the remaining family members knew nothing of its worth, monetary or otherwise You do not note your whereabouts, but if you were ever interested in taking up blacksmithing, a simple google search will connect you with the various associations in Oz Jim Deering
  18. G'day There are a number of images in various threads on ifi which show quite well the numerous workshops from all over the place. Clearly we all have our own preferences for how far away from the forge the leg vice, anvil, hammer and layout table should be. Two or three paces seems to be the norm, from what I've observed, but this really works best for smaller forgings; of a size which can be manually handled by one, or perhaps two, people Some shops plan around the idea of a flow, from raw materials in at one end of the shop, then to say a cut-off saw, followed by a number of pathways for the cut material. To the forge, the layout table, the lathe, or mill, twister or press. After that, the item goes to the next machine or apparatus it needs to visit as part of the manufacturing process and onwards. The individual items end up on the assembly table, or in a clear space assigned this purpose, and once the final steps are taken, the finished item goes out, either where the raw materials come in or via another point used to load road transport say Others appear very much random and seem to be planned on the basis of 'this is where it landed, so this is where it stays!' Not to say there is anything necessarily wrong with this 'evolved' type of floor layout, but there are benefits with being just a little more organised... Especially when the opportunity to be so presents itself as a blank canvas I have a multitude of ideas on how to set my new space out and am looking to obtain the benefit of second hand knowledge. You know, "I did it this way and it works" or "I did it this way and found I had to change things like this..." Most of my gear is on wheels, or is of a type that can be readily shifted, so I plan to have nothing fixed hard and fast, with the exceptions being the 'properly planted' hammers. I am experimenting with having at least one air hammer of 90lb [40kg] size mobile, so even those machines may be readily shifted to suit the job at hand, if that experiment is successful. I'm also looking at making a grid on 2' [600mm] centres of 2" [50mm] square tube [sHS] which will be cast into the entire concrete floor of the shop. This makes for flexible but rigid mounting for things like leg vices and permits rigging equipment to be used to tweak items that are otherwise difficult to handle. Think giant acorn table... Regardless of this essentially movable workshop, there are things to consider - hammers and anything too big to roll about or lift - when it comes to the placement of the fixed items and before I commit to a final arrangement, I consider it prudent to raise my question, which relates to forging area layouts for larger working shops, where bigger items are manufactured in particular. I would like to know if any one has floor plans of the working areas in their larger shops they would be prepared to share here? Regards Jim Deering
  19. G'day Thanks for the positive comments on my initial posting I have to agree on the T-bolts, especially leaving enough room to allow for broken heads to fall clear of the room needed to fit new bolts. Unless you think of this... The manufacture of the T-bolts can be made a little more simple if the bolt shank is left round along its entire length and the head made rectangular. Then weld tabs either side of the rectangular - get that bit, rectangular... - hole in the bottom plate - which is cast into the inertia block. These tabs then hold the rectangular head of the T-bolt from turning as the retaining nut is torqued You can place and remove the T-bolts as you see fit, so long as there is clearance in the rectangular hole in the bottom plate... That way if the head breaks off, some manipulation with a magnetic pickup tool should see the head come out of the inertia block... Just like the manhole cover tool works You can just tack weld a piece of rod to the end of the T-bolt to pull it up once the hammer is in place. Just let a Ø4mm [5/32-in dia.] rod stick and then let it come out of the electrode holder. Otherwise, do yourself a favour and thread a screw into the tapped hole in the end of the T-bolt so it doesn't fill up with scale and other rubbish. makes removal a bit simpler as you won't need to clean the tapped hole out. These hold down bolts are substantial in size, but as others have noted, they can and do break. resilient mountings under the retaining nut will lessen the shock loadings and increase lifecycles, but, really, how hard are they to replace, if it is done right in the first place? As an aside, I have seen hammers simply bolted to beefy - about 200mm square [8-inches] red gum [eucalyptus camaldulensis] beams - old bridge beams actually - and the machine merely placed into a pit, bounded by timber framing and filled with sand, in the forge floor. The beam's length to suit the hammer... Ditto the advice on rotting timbers noted here though! Check and replace if rot is evident. The hammer is held upright by the timbers and if one breaks, the machine could topple over, especially if it is a top-heavy type. One of the best anti-rot treatments is pressure treated creosoting, but certain jurisdictions frown on its use. Search on-line for it by name and you will soon discover why... Nasty stuff, but like all nasty stuff, it does a great job! It is a case of, "Why is everything I like, immoral, illegal or fattening?" Sand, being non-contiguous, is a poor transmitter of vibration, but there is a limit to its ability to reduce vibration, based on things like moisture content and grain size. It is though cheap, easy to handle and plentiful The hammer would tilt forwards over time and when the tilt became excessive, the machine was lifted clear of the sand pit, the sand re-levelled, and the machine put back into the sand pit This only works on one-piece hammers, unless you make a raft to hold the two-piece hammer's parts in the correct orientation and that would defeat the purpose, to my way of thinking Many readers will attest to the versatility of this arrangement, as they have their anvils in drums, filled with sand, making easy height adjustment another benefit. Here it is suggested the same arrangement be considered for use, just executed on a power hammer scale, as opposed to an anvil scale Hammer, when mounted to steel plate, must be properly bedded onto the plate, otherwise tightening of hold-down bolts will cause significant bending stresses to the hammer frame. For this reason, hammers whose manufacturers include this method of mounting in their repertoire of fixing options always machine the hammer bases flat and suggest any steel plate to be used as a base either be machined also, and that bedding material be used to prevent breakages of the hammer frame. Because of its density being nominally three times that of concrete, steel plate mountings can often be placed, on isolation pads, directly onto a floor, without using a pit. Most times, pits are just to get a big enough lump of concrete under the machine in reality. Commonly, a ratio of three times the assembled hammer mass is suggested for the inertia block, but that is only a general guide. Far less steel plate is needed to get the ratio With old machines, the bases are rarely flat - severely rusted quiet often, distorted perhaps, from long-term mounting to less-than-ideal mountings etc., Cast iron can be flexed to a degree when green, but gets less flexible as it matures, which it does over time, a bit like concrete. So, if you were looking at a steel plate inertia block, make sure you bed the hammer base properly! There are excellent sources of data on embedment lengths for chemically anchored fasteners and threaded rod is available in a multitude of grades and materials in many parts of the world, so "glued in" is still an option, and can cater for very long engagements, it is just that the dedicated system is the most durable and serviceable. The chemical anchoring is so tenacious that, if correctly designed, it will usually see the strongest concrete fail on a nom. 30° shear cone, or the bolt fail, and you can design for that to be the failure mode if you rally want, well before the chemical bond lets go of the concrete. That is probably a topic for discussion elsewhere... I strongly recommend getting the dedicated Massey information from John N. as he and Co. are THE source for all things Massey As for exactly how the Massey valving gives that 'best of both worlds, being steam and air' behavioural characteristics of the tup, I could tell you, but John N. would hunt me down and it would end badly Bed time, or I turn into a pumpkin Jim Deering
  20. G'day Hans Assuming a couple of major factors here; a clear space type hammer and that you are looking at industrial use of it, given its size Massey have recommended Tico S for the isolation pads and wall lining beneath and around the inertia block, and Tico PF / PA under the anvil, the prices of which is significant, to me in the fairly recent past and that would be my best advice. Isolation matting from Fabreeka was also suggested and other similar materials from James Walker and Specthane as well. Also suggested was 100mm of well-fitted sound good quality timber under the anvil, which was the method used until the rubber materials took over in the 1950's. There are resellers of these materials, and others to choose from too, in Australia, so you could search for them fairly easily on-line. Another option is a product known as M164 isolation material, from an Australian company based in Victoria, with some knowledge of its use as isolation material under power hammers. I've seen one hammer with this stuff under it and it works very well to isolate the inertia block from the surrounding flooring. It was perhaps overdone, as the hammer literally wobbles in use, but there is almost no effect transferred to the surrounds either Fine tuning the isolation material could be done by being able to lift the inertia block out of the pit, removing or adding isolation sheeting and packing as needed with steel sheet, if you have the lifting facilities, to get optimal isolation, without the excessive machine movement. If not, talk to the supplier and provide them all the info they need to design the installation for you. The design of isolated inertia blocks is involved and having some latitude for adjustment to fine tune things is really worthwhile, hence the suggestion to consider a removable inertia block John Nicholson knows what he is about and there is little point in re-inventing the wheel. Despite the cost of the drawings and information packages available, the information they contain is proven and has been widely used over decades. The amount of time you might use chasing different options is time not spent forging - that is making money to pay for the installation. If you decide on something that performs badly, you are in a fair spot of bother! Particularly if you have cast the inertia block inside the pit with no thought to being able to remove it simply by lifting it out. This is a can of worms to pop open in this post but, if you would like a dissertation, you need only ask... In short, look at the best installation advice, which is from Massey, in the form of drawings. Reinforced pit on compacted fill, formed outside and inside, correct isolation materials lining it, a correctly sized inertia block cast inside it against recommended isolation materials, with the facility to remove the block, proper bedding timbers under the hammer standard [the base of the machine] and further appropriate isolation material under the anvil is the best way to limit vibration transfer The thing to consider most closely is the cost. This style of installation will not be cheap. Also, your hammer use might not dictate this sort of installation. A big lump of concrete in the ground might very well do. Some people just sit hammers up to 5cwt cs on a sound concrete floor, resting upon packers and off they go. Ground type / floor strength and worries about the neighbours are probably the main factors that will guide your final decision, which is entirely yours to make As for a better working height consider these choices 1 Raise the top of the inertia block above the floor by the amount you need to get the upper surface of the tup die where you want it, allowing for bedding timbers, tooling and "normal" material sizes to be forged etc. This will provide for a shallower hole and pit - you keep the inertia block depth the same as recommended, just don't put it as far into the ground. This saves digging and some concrete. Downside, it does leave the inertia block poking out of the floor if you move the machine later. If it is a 'forever' installation on you own place, so what? If you are installing in a rented space... read your contract! 2 Pack under the hammer and anvil to raise the assembled machine, with the deductions allowed for as above, off the top of the inertia block set level with the floor. If you decide to move the machine, you could leave the inertia block behind and not have to worry about a high strength concrete block poking 150mm out of the floor. Downside, if the packers are not very well bedded to each other, there may be excessive play between the layers resulting in an unacceptable degrees of movement of the hammer, the anvil and / or the two parts to each other and perhaps an overhead crane 3 Dig a trench. A possible, but stupid, idea, clearly made in jest! 4 Perhaps you could jump off the top of the hammer a few times, thus upsetting your legs to the appropriate length? Really, would anyone consider that as legitimate advice?! Obviously this is NOT advice anyone should consider as serious, much less follow Many people just pour concrete into a hole in the ground - despite being told this is potentially a poor method - and expect it to prevent all vibration from being transmitted to the surrounds. When it does not, they have issues that are expensive and difficult to rectify. For those who follow sound advice the issues are minimal. For those who decide they know best, or mistake bad advice for good and follow it without question, good luck and expect to hear "I told you so" when moaning about the neighbours complaining about unwelcome vibrations! Horses may be lead to water, but drinking is their choice. This method will nonetheless reduce vibration transmission, and the bigger the block, hence the larger the mass, the better, but it you want to reduce vibrations to the least possible level, you need to isolate the hammer, its anvil and the inertia block from the surrounds! Despite the negatives, this may in fact be all that is required beneath your hammer. It depends on the floor or ground type, the expected hammer usage and the neighbours inclination to be difficult or pleasant Conveyor belt is cheap, relatively easy to come by and handle and used by a lot of people. It is a poor choice, transmits vibration readily, especially if it is the steel wire rope reinforced type, can and will break down over time, especially if you are using the hammer to capacity over long periods of forging and is better left on the conveyor frankly. The canvas reinforced belt is marginally more effective in isolation of vibration but no where near effective enough for me to recommend it and also breaks down. It gets hot with repeated application of impacts and crumbles, before ultimately delaminating. The crumbs migrate and eventually the anvil tilts or begins to rock. Doesn't sound like fun to fix, does it? I am reliably informed this style of material results in a very different "feel" when forging, compared to the recommended materials, particularly with larger hammers Massey's drawings show removable T-headed hold down bolts placed into sockets in boxed tubes inside the inertia block and I can't recommend them highly enough. If you drill and glue hold downs after casting, or cast them during the pour, only to have one break in service... Not fun to fix. I would also suggest not using expanding masonry anchors. These work by pushing against the adjoining concrete and do not tolerate oscillating loads at all well. They work loose as soon as the concrete they are pushing against breaks away, whereas the chemical anchors and those cast in during the pour do not. But, chemical, like cast-in hold downs, are a pain to replace if one breaks Concrete grade is important and again, the Massey booklet you refer to is a good source on information on the correct grade and make up One thing you might want to add to your considerations, which is rarely mentioned on this forum or anywhere else for that matter, is a sump of some sort, or free drainage facility of the inertia block pit. If the water table is high enough, over time you might get water entering the pit. Even a broken pipe, a hose left running, overflowing dunny, whatever, can lead to water in the pit. Sealing the top of it to the surrounding floor - assuming a concrete floor here - should stop water getting in - again, covered in the Massey drawings. However, "it" does happen and just allowing enough room to poke a wet and dry vac tube down the side of the block to the bottom of the pit will make life easier in the long run Think about this. Cast a 50mm PVC tube vertically in the inertia block clear of the foot print of the hammer standard. If you put a 100 to 50 reducer on the bottom end of the pipe, like a very long funnel with the big end facing down, with a piece of polystyrene jammed into it, you will only need to break up the polystyrene plug with a piece of rod after the block is cured and you will have that sump. 40mm PVC will fit down the 50 and also be a neat fit to the average wet or dry vac hose. Cap the top end of the 50, which should also be in a 100 to 50 reducer but poked through to reducer far enough to enable fitting a cap to it, but not so far as to be proud of the upper surface of the inertia block. Then, if you must roll or skid the hammer or anvil, the plastic pipe won't be in the way and get damaged. Probably a bit too much detail there, but there you go... If your site permits, you could plumb a drain line out of the bottom of the pit to a waste water disposal point Finally, there are plans out there for inertia blocks that are T-shaped for forging hammers. These hold the machine and anvil in the usual way and are in turn supported on isolators under the horizontal arms of the T-shape. Like a T sitting in a U... These isolators are then supported by the vertical walls of the pit into which the vertical part of the T-shaped inertia block projects. The idea is to get the centre of gravity of the assembled machine and inertia block into the same plane as the isolation supports. This prevents the hammer assembly from 'nodding' in operation, which can occur when the entire assembly sits on the very bottom face of the inertia block, thus becoming top heavy if you like. Think bloke in a manhole, resting his weight on his elbows. The pendulum effect then reduces overturning versus one of those egg-shaped "knock it down and it pops back up" punching bag toys. Because you are looking at raising the hammer's working height, it might be possible to make something like this, which would result in the isolators being accessible at floor level for adjustment and maintenance and a far simpler pit construction down at the bottom of the pit... There is a lot of information on this site and many of the members are keen to help; and they will do so, simply because they are a good crowd and love to contribute by helping out. Balance that information against sound engineering principles and proven, existing installations and you'll get the answers you need Jim Deering
  21. G'day I built a 2-in x 72-in belt grinder about twenty years ago from design drawings I'd prepared with the help of my best mate, who had ready access to a machine shop to deal with the large hollow shaft, which acts as the housing for the drive head, and the take-up pulley housing. The rest was cut from plate and hot rolled sections then welded together. The contact wheels were commercial ones and ranged from Ø4-in to Ø13-in in plain face with an additional serrated face wheel of Ø8-in size. The durometer hardness of the wheels is 70, for those really interested. The take-up pulley was old stock from the company that made the contact wheels, crowned at Ø7-in. made from cast aluminium. I looked at a few alternatives for contact wheels and decided the centripetal forces that would be generated at the rims of the larger contact wheels far exceeded the tensile capacity of things like wood, hence opting to obtain professionally-made ones. Don't underestimate the effect of a "home-made" contact wheel being out of balance either, especially large ones! This will be more of an issue if you are using variable speed drives, as you might inadvertently run a contact wheel that has been balanced at a specific speed at a speed where it is not balanced. With stepped pullies the speeds are fixed, in steps, so the likelihood of one being in the range where harmonics take over is reduced. The harmonics caused by an unbalance contact wheel can be quite surprising and even some heavier weight belts can get quite a bit of movement up between the contact wheel and take-up pulley at different speeds... But I digress into the infinite realm of details. Oops. The grinder started off life with a 2HP AC motor and was fitted with 5-step pullies to give a reasonable range of speeds. The only time the stepped pullies were a nuisance was when the large diameter of the driven pulley interfered with longer blades. I knew this would be the case from the design phase, but at the time, buying a variable drive assembly was out of the question. There was however, a plan... As I was making knives at the time, I found it was quite suitable for heavy stock removal and fine finishing, just by moving the belt to provide the required speeds. As an aside, if abrasive belts are run too slow, the grit breaks off the belt; too fast and the grit glazes, leading to lessened cutting and increased heating of the work-piece. The moral; know your grinding belt surface speeds for the given work-piece material and set your drive speeds to give the correct surface speed for the grinding belt. Once the machine had generated some income, a 2HP DC Baldor motor was bought and mated to a speed controller. I turned a pair of microgroove pullies to accept a 5-ribbed belt and away I went with all the original features, plus variable control. The pullies were sized to provide clearance for the belt guard, which matched the drive head's outside diameter. This reduced the pulley to work-piece interference issue to zero. Having now used that grinder over the interceding years, I would not hesitate to recommend variable speed for a belt grinder. I would recommend having that aim in mind from the start of the grinder's design though, then you can upgrade as your funds permit. As for other sources to obtain variable motors, treadmills, some vacuum cleaners and ever large capacity drills can be used to provide motive force, with the requisite ingenuity necessary when it comes to mounting them into the grinder. Variable pitch pullies could even do the job, and they can be made from scratch, although that isn't a job for the inexperienced or under-equipped. Pillow block bearings and precision ground shafting should take care of the rotating drive parts. Contact wheels experience quite small axial loading, from an engineering perspective, so collars to suit the shafting used could be used to hold the contact wheels in place. These can be obtained from engineering suppliers, and usually have two grub screws, which lock the collars into place on the shafting. If you are really operating on a shoestring, visit junk yards and look for old farm machinery. Use your imagination and you'll see the decrepit birth the new in your mind's eye. The final words; get the electrical assembly done by a licensed electrician. No arguments! Make guards for the drive parts and shroud the belt as best you can while still permitting the access to the grinding belt you need to stop errant sparks getting in your eyes. yad’G
  22. Sent you a PM Nick... Have a read, see what you can find
  23. This might be of interest... http://www.facebook.com/BlacksmithTreeProject#!/BlacksmithTreeProject
  24. Thomas Could you post an image of it please? Jim
  25. G'day Does anyone here have one of the Champion Blower and Forge No. 1 "Hercules" spring hammers with the original electric motor mount fastened to the bottom of the hammer frame at the rear? Most pictured here seem to be driven from overhead lines - or an overhead drive of some sort. I would like to convert my "Hercules" from overhead to bottom drive and would like to maintain the original look of the hammer are far as I can by replicating the original motor mount. Images are more informative than words... Thanks